Haryana

StateCommission

A/1052/2019

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALJEET AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA

15 Oct 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1052 of 2019

Date of Institution:  05.12.2019

Date of Decision:   15.10.2020

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 156-159, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

Now through its authorized person Saurav Khullar, Senior Executive Assistant Manager and Authorized Person.

 

 

Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Baljeet aged about 55 years son of Shri Dariya Singh, resident of VPO Garhwali, Tehsil Julana, District Jind.

 

Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

 

2.      Punjab National Bank, Gatauli Branch, Jind.

 

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Rajesh Verma, counsel for the appellant.

                    

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons as specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      Opposite party No.2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for challenging the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind, whereby complaint preferred by complainant Baljeet, under Section 12 of the Act, was allowed and the insurance company was directed to pay Rs.85,800/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount and Rs.5,500/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.

3.      According to the complainant, he is an agriculturist and maintaining a joint bank account with opposite party No.1-Punjab National Bank and availed crop loan from the said bank. The paddy crop of the complainant was insured by opposite party No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through opposite party No.1 by paying premium of Rs.1229.77 paise on 31.07.2017 from the account of the complainant.  2.96 acres of paddy crop of the complainant was totally damaged due to inundation. Information in this regard was given to the insurance company as well as Agriculture Department on 20.07.2017. A committee of Agriculture Department inspected the field in the presence of authorized person of opposite party No.2 and reported that the crop of the complainant was damaged to the extent of 100% due to inundation. The complainant suffered loss of paddy yield at the rate of 20 quintals per acre in 2.96 acres i.e. about 59 quintals. Thus, he suffered loss @ Rs.3,800/- per quintal amounting to Rs.2,24,200/- but no claim was released, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.

4.      Upon notice, Bank-opposite party No.1 tendered written version, raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that though the complainant had account with the bank-opposite party No.1 and loan thereof had been admitted but it was stated that the premium amount was paid through the bank account of the complainant. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite        party No.1.

5.      The insurance company-opposite party No.2 also tendered its reply, raising preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that though the complainant was insured but it had not received claim intimation from the complainant and accordingly survey was not conducted and localize claim was not payable accordingly. Further, there was no shortfall of yield for the said crop in the given IU as per the data provided by the government. Hence, the yield claim was not payable. There was thus no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.

6.      In his evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW and documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5 whereas opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit (Annexure OPW1/1) of Shri Joginder Singh, Branch Manager while opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit (Annexure OPW2/1) of Shri Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal and documents (Annexures OP2/1 to OP2/2).

7.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.85,800/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and sum of Rs.5,500/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.

8.      Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-appellant has submitted that though the complainant’s crop stood insured but it had not received claim intimation. As such, survey was not conducted and claim was not payable to the complainant.

9.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the factum of the complainant’s crop having been insured stands admitted by the insurance company. An amount of Rs.1229.77 paise was deducted as premium from the bank account of the complainant as reflected in the certificate (Annexure C-2) of the bank. Further, from the report (Annexure C-3) of the Agriculture Department it stands establish that there was 100% loss/damage to the paddy crop of the complainant in 1.2 hectare. It may also be noticed that the insurance company had fixed rates as per which Rs.71,500/- was fixed per hectare for Kharif crop of year 2017 under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. As the loss suffered by the complainant was in 1.2 hectare, he was entitled for indemnification to the tune of Rs.85,800/-.

10.    In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, in accordance with law.

 

Announced 15.10.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.